The armies of northern and southern Gasconade County have been mobilized but are not yet massing along an imaginary border somewhere between Drake and Swiss. Tactical squadrons of each combatants’ air forces are on high alert. Tank battalions and batteries of field artillery have been moved to positions for quick strikes or rapid response to enemy action.

Nevermind that a suitable building (the former Owensville Elementary 3-5 Center) has been offered to the county free and that its renovation and remodeling costs are estimated to be the least expensive of three proposed alternatives. Nevermind that the legal number of signatures from registered voters were obtained on a petition, and certified, to place the controversial issue of moving the county seat from Hermann to Owensville on the November ballot. More legal action is threatened now to have that petition invalidated because of alleged improper wording. It appears that a small faction of those who demand that the seat of county government remain in Hermann are afraid to put the question to voters countywide. Maybe their fear is well founded; maybe not.

At least a vote on the issue of moving the county seat now would be a great deal fairer than the one a century-and-a-half-plus ago that moved it from Mt. Sterling to Hermann. The vote, if the issue is allowed to be placed on the ballot in November, would include registered voters countywide. The move from Mt. Sterling to Hermann was determined only by white male citizens 21 and older (women had not yet gained the right to cast ballots and 18-year-olds were not granted voting rights until much later; any blacks living in the county then likely were slaves, but would not have had voting rights even if they were freemen). It appears from election results that only eligible voters in Mt. Sterling and their counterparts in Hermann were allowed to vote on the move. Hermann had several hundred qualified voters; Mt. Sterling a few dozen. CBS and NBC would not have had to do exit polls to determine the outcome of that election.

A war of words on this issue has been under way for sometime. Attempts to resolve the dispute through diplomatic initiatives have been turned back by a small but hard core faction of proponents of the “No change at any cost” policy. Well, at least no change that would involve abandoning the historic courthouse. Those proponents are pushing an estimated $14 million plan that would level all of the bluff the courthouse stands on except that portion directly beneath it. Then, according to the plan, a U-shaped addition would be built around the old courthouse that would solve all the problems. By the way, that is the most expensive-by several millions dollars-of the three alternatives presented by a committee whose members put in a great deal of time and effort in coming up with viable problem-solving proposals.

For some strange reason, it doesn’t seem logical, or well intentioned, to set off several tons of dynamite next to an ancient, historic building you’re trying to preserve. Leveling the bluff around the courthouse would, I would surmise, include at least some high explosives somewhere in the process. Then there is the environmental issue, destroying part of the landscape. That bluff was there long before the courthouse. If we’re going to talk preservation, get serious and leave things the way nature intended.

No where in any of the proposals to solve the needs of 21st Century county government has there been any mention of, or allusion to, razing the current courthouse. The building itself needs to stay there, maybe as another Historical Society museum, or a tourist attraction and visitors’ center. It is an important part of the county’s history and an imposing, impressionable structure when seen by those approaching Hermann from either the north or south. But as a government center in today’s world, it falls far short. Maybe it is time to retire it, but let’s do it gracefully.